DOCSLIB.ORG

Fundamentalism from the Perspective of Liberal Tolerance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fundamentalism from the Perspective of Liberal Tolerance Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Boyd Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 2003 Fundamentalism from the Perspective of Liberal Tolerance Leslie C. Griffin University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub Part of the Law and Politics Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Griffin, Leslie C., "Fundamentalism from the Perspective of Liberal Tolerance" (2003). Scholarly Works. 720. https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/720 This Article is brought to you by the Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Boyd Law, an institutional repository administered by the Wiener-Rogers Law Library at the William S. Boyd School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FUNDAMENTALISM FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LIBERAL TOLERANCE Leslie C. Griffin* "[T]he historical origin of political liberalism (and of liberalism more generally) is the Reformation and its aftermath, with the long controversies over religious toleration in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries."' Liberals and liberal theorists have never forgotten the Wars of Religion. Although the seventeenth century "has often been called the century of reason and genius"2 (because of Descartes, Hobbes, Corneille, Pascal, Locke and others), Locke scholar Hans Aarsleff reminds us that: For the vast majority of the men and women who lived in Europe during Locke's century, the immediate reality was very different. It was a time of violence, death, rape, war, and devastation on a vast scale. It was years of religious strife caused by sectarian disputes over the right reading of Scriptures and the flaunting of royal despotism justified by the doctrine of the divine right of kings. It was a world of constant religious and political intolerance and repression, and of ensuing dislocation that made fugitives wander across the lands of Europe in search of peace and security.' The exhaustion from these wars "eventually led to the formulation and often reluctant acceptance of some form of the principle of toleration."' The acceptance of toleration was reluctant because all sides wanted their vision of the truth to conquer their erroneous neighbors. Nonetheless, despite its limitations, liberal tolerance brought to citizens a truce that * Larry & Joanne Doherty Chair in Legal Ethics, University of Houston Law Center. JOHN RAWLS, POLITICAL LIBERALISM, at xxvi (1996). 2 Hans Aarsleff, Locke's influence, in THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO LOCKE 252, 254 (Vere Chappell ed., 1994). 3 Id. (emphasis added). " JOHN RAWLS, JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS: A RESTATEMENT 1 (Erin Kelly ed., 2001) [hereinafter RAWLS, JUSTICE]. 1631 HeinOnline -- 24 Cardozo L. Rev. 1631 2002-2003 1632 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 24:4 religious intolerance had not provided. Because of this history, liberals fear religious excess and intolerance, and are prone to see it wherever fundamentalism occurs. The preeminent proponent of liberalism, John Rawls, identifies religion as liberalism's ongoing challenge. He asks: "How is it possible for those holding religious doctrines, some based on religious authority, for example, the Church or the Bible, to hold at the same time a reasonable political conception that supports a reasonable constitutional democratic regime?"5 Although many religious worldviews can support democracy, Rawls concludes that fundamentalisms, whether religious or philosophical, are generally incompatible with liberal democracy, and are "politically unreasonable."6 Politically unreasonable groups test the limits of our tolerance. According to Rawls, political liberalism is the theory that emerges from the first original position, which is composed of citizens of liberal societies who choose from behind the veil of ignorance.7 Four central features of this political liberalism explain why fundamentalism can be incompatible with democracy and thus politically unreasonable. The Warriors of Religion in Europe believed their religion was true, so they fought to establish it as the religion of the state or prince. But Rawlsian liberals accept (first) pluralism among people's comprehensive beliefs. To fundamentalists who proclaim one truth, liberals respond that no one comprehensive doctrine compels the allegiance of all citizens. Pluralism is an abiding feature of our lives and will not fade. Therefore, (second) a politicalconception of justice must be found that does not impose one comprehensive doctrine (like Catholicism, Kantianism or Islam) on one's fellow citizens. The political conception of justice will be based on (third) an overlapping consensus in which citizens can agree on the political and constitutional essentials of their society, even though they disagree about their comprehensive doctrines. Finally, decisions within the overlapping consensus should be made only on the basis of reasons that appeal to all citizens, and so citizens must employ (fourth) public reason. Public reason means that citizens should not appeal to comprehensive religious and philosophical doctrines but to arguments that their fellow citizens may "reasonably be expected to endorse."8 5 JOHN RAWLS, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited, in COLLECTED PAPERS 573, 588 (Samuel Freeman ed., 1999) [hereinafter RAWLS, The Idea of Public Reason]. 6 Id.at 613. 7 JOHN RAWLS, THE LAW OF PEOPLES 30 (1999). 8 RAWLS, supra note 1, at 225. HeinOnline -- 24 Cardozo L. Rev. 1632 2002-2003 2003] LIBERAL TOLERANCE 1633 These four features of political liberalism explain both the tension between religion and democracy, as well as why toleration is required in a liberal democracy. Believers instinctively want their own comprehensive perspective to govern all aspects of life. Yet pluralism renders this desire impossible, unless force is used to impose one's views on another. Instead of inflicting their views on others, citizens should meet on the common ground of political justice, an independent "module" shared by all. Toleration of different perspectives "mitigates" the "conflict between democracy and reasonable religious doctrines."9 Instead of establishing one comprehensive doctrine, liberalism recognizes a constitutional right of religious liberty and defends a purely political conception of justice in which religious doctrines are not imposed on citizens. Rawls concludes "that a reasonable comprehensive doctrine accepts some form of the political argument for toleration."1 Rawls asserts that his modem vision of liberalism "completes and extends" the old principle of toleration that arose from the Wars of Religion in Europe.1 Toleration offered only a modus vivendi and was inherently unstable. Although it put an end to war, the principle of toleration allowed for the possibility that groups would wait until they gained more members, and then use their power to build a society that was consistent with their comprehensive doctrine. Such tolerant societies, in which groups were always waiting for the opportunity to impose their views on others, were never stable. Modern democracies require more, and so Rawls argues that consensus should replace toleration. Today, citizens need a political, overlapping consensus that does not shift as religions gain adherents. Such consensus provides social stability, which has "very 'great value.""' 2 Imposing one's comprehensive view upsets stability, and so is (morally) forbidden in a constitutional democracy. This means that the political conception of justice has to be "affirmed by citizens irrespective of the political strength of their comprehensive view."'3 Some comprehensive doctrines simply cannot accept toleration, consensus, a political conception of justice, or democracy. "[F]undamentalist religious doctrines.., will reject the ideas of public reason and deliberative democracy. They will 9 RAWLS, The Idea of Public Reason, supra note 5, at 611. 10 Id. at 612. 11JOHN RAWLS, The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus, in COLLECTED PAPERS 421, 437 (Samuel Freeman ed., 1999); see also RAWLS, supra note 1, at 154. 12 RAWLS, supra note 1, at 139. 13 RAWLS, JUSTICE, supra note 4, at 1. HeinOnline -- 24 Cardozo L. Rev. 1633 2002-2003 1634 CARDOZO LA W REVIEW [Vol. 24:4 say that democracy leads to a culture contrary to their religion .... They assert that the religiously true, or the philosophically true, overrides the politically reasonable."'' 4 Rawls "simply say[s]" that such doctrines are "politically unreasonable."' 5 They challenge the stability of democratic institutions by their intolerance. Who are these politically unreasonable fundamentalists? The term "fundamentalism" has its origins in American Protestantism, from The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, a series of essays about the Bible and Christian faith, which was distributed widely between 1910 and 1915. "The term fundamentalist itself was coined by Baptist editor Curtis Lee Laws in 1920 as a designation for those who were ready 'to do battle royal for the Fundamentals.""' 6 Those Fundamentalists are remembered for their opposition to evolution. In the 1990s, an era of resurgent fundamentalism, the Fundamentalism Project sought a definition of fundamentalism that could apply to all religions across the world, not only Christianity or American Protestantism. Among the numerous features of fundamentalism, I emphasize five: 1) its opposition to modernity; 2) its selective appropriation of the past; 3) its totalitarian impulse; 4) its "pronounced" commitment to patriarchy; and 5) its militancy.'7 About modernity, (first) fundamentalists dislike especially "the adoption
Load more

Recommended publications
  • St. Augustine and the Doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ Stanislaus J
    ST. AUGUSTINE AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST STANISLAUS J. GRABOWSKI, S.T.D., S.T.M. Catholic University of America N THE present article a study will be made of Saint Augustine's doc­ I trine of the Mystical Body of Christ. This subject is, as it will be later pointed out, timely and fruitful. It is of unutterable importance for the proper and full conception of the Church. This study may be conveniently divided into four parts: (I) A fuller consideration of the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, as it is found in the works of the great Bishop of Hippo; (II) a brief study of that same doctrine, as it is found in the sources which the Saint utilized; (III) a scrutiny of the place that this doctrine holds in the whole system of his religious thought and of some of its peculiarities; (IV) some consideration of the influence that Saint Augustine exercised on the development of this particular doctrine in theologians and doctrinal systems. THE DOCTRINE St. Augustine gives utterance in many passages, as the occasion de­ mands, to words, expressions, and sentences from which we are able to infer that the Church of his time was a Church of sacramental rites and a hierarchical order. Further, writing especially against Donatism, he is led Xo portray the Church concretely in its historical, geographical, visible form, characterized by manifest traits through which she may be recognized and discerned from false chuiches. The aspect, however, of the concept of the Church which he cherished most fondly and which he never seems tired of teaching, repeating, emphasizing, and expound­ ing to his listeners is the Church considered as the Body of Christ.1 1 On St.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarianism, Culture, and Personal Predispositions
    Undergraduate Journal of Psychology 22 Libertarianism, Culture, and Personal Predispositions Ida Hepsø, Scarlet Hernandez, Shir Offsey, & Katherine White ​ Kennesaw​ State University Abstract The United States has exhibited two potentially connected trends – increasing individualism and increasing interest in libertarian ideology. Previous research on libertarian ideology found higher levels of individualism among libertarians, and cross-cultural research has tied greater individualism to making dispositional attributions and lower altruistic tendencies. Given this, we expected to observe positive correlations between the following variables in the present research: individualism and endorsement of libertarianism, individualism and dispositional attributions, and endorsement of libertarianism and dispositional attributions. We also expected to observe negative correlations between libertarianism and altruism, dispositional attributions and altruism, and individualism and altruism. Survey results from 252 participants confirmed a positive correlation between individualism and libertarianism, a marginally significant positive correlation between libertarianism and dispositional attributions, and a negative correlation between individualism and altruism. These results confirm the connection between libertarianism and individualism observed in previous research and present several intriguing questions for future research on libertarian ideology. Key Words: Libertarianism, individualism, altruism, attributions individualistic, made apparent
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Social Norms and Human Rights
    The Psychology of Social Norms and the Promotion of Human Rights Deborah A. Prentice Princeton University Chapter to appear in R. Goodman, D. Jinks, & A. K. Woods (Eds.), Understanding social action, promoting human rights. New York: Oxford University Press. This chapter was written while I was Visiting Faculty in the School of Social Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ. I would like to thank Jeremy Adelman, JoAnne Gowa, Bob Keohane, Eric Maskin, Dale Miller, Catherine Ross, Teemu Ruskola, Rick Shweder, and Eric Weitz for helpful discussions and comments on earlier drafts of the chapter. Please direct correspondence to: Deborah Prentice Department of Psychology Princeton University Green Hall Princeton, NJ 08540 [email protected] 1 Promoting human rights means changing behavior: Changing the behavior of governments that mistreat suspected criminals, opponents of their policies, supporters of their political rivals, and members of particular gender, ethnic, or religious groups; changing the behavior of corporations that mistreat their workers, damage the environment, and produce unsafe products; and changing the behavior of citizens who mistreat their spouses, children, and neighbors. In this chapter, I consider what an understanding of how social norms function psychologically has to contribute to this very worthy project. Social norms have proven to be an effective mechanism for changing health-related and environmental behaviors, so there is good reason to think that they might be helpful in the human-rights domain as well. In the social sciences, social norms are defined as socially shared and enforced attitudes specifying what to do and what not to do in a given situation (see Elster, 1990; Sunstein, 1997).
    [Show full text]
  • REFLECTIONS on the DOCTRINE of the TRINITY Faith in the Living
    REFLECTIONS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY RAOUL DEDEREN Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan Faith in the living God has been rejected time and again by the ignorant and the indifferent, as well as by many of the learned and the thoughtful. It has been especially chal- lenged today. Such theologians as Bishop John A. T. Robinson of Woolwich, honestly seeking to be Honest to God, urge Christians to abandon most of the phrasing which historically has been used to convey Christian thought. Similarly, the late Bishop James A. Pike of California dismisses many traditional doctrines as old bottles which will inevitably burst and whose bursting should occasion no regrets. In this kind of context many men, even ministers, feel uneasy when they think about the Trinity. The question before us is whether it is time to renounce a doctrine which, by affirming that there are three persons in God, seems to have produced confusion rather than clarification, or whether it was designed to embody values that are a vital and necessary part of the Christian faith. From the days of Arius it has been a chosen scheme with his disciples to represent the doctrine of the Trinity as an artificial theological construct, and consequently unimportant. To a large number of Christians, however, it is a doctrine fundament4 to Christianity since it deals with a correct knowledge of God. Related to the divine Being, his nature and mode of being, this knowledge affects every man's understanding of God as the object of his worship, whether he regards him as one in essence and one in person, or admits that in the unity of the Deity there are three equally divine persons.
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing Fundamentalism by Legal and Spiritual Means
    H UMAN R IGHTS & H UMAN W ELFARE Addressing Fundamentalism by Legal and Spiritual Means By Dan Wessner Religion and Humane Global Governance by Richard A. Falk. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 191 pp. Gender and Human Rights in Islam and International Law: Equal before Allah, Unequal before Man? by Shaheen Sardar Ali. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000. 358 pp. Religious Fundamentalisms and the Human Rights of Women edited by Courtney W. Howland. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. 326 pp. The Islamic Quest for Democracy, Pluralism, and Human Rights by Ahmad S. Moussalli. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2001. 226 pp. The post-Cold War era stands at a crossroads. Some sort of new world order or disorder is under construction. Our choice to move more toward multilateralism or unilateralism is informed well by inter-religious debate and international law. Both disciplines rightly challenge the “post- Enlightenment divide between religion and politics,” and reinvigorate a spiritual-legal dialogue once thought to be “irrelevant or substandard” (Falk: 1-8, 101). These disciplines can dissemble illusory walls between spiritual/sacred and material/modernist concerns, between realpolitik interests and ethical judgment (Kung 1998: 66). They place praxis and war-peace issues firmly in the context of a suffering humanity and world. Both warn as to how fundamentalism may subjugate peace and security to a demagogic, uncompromising quest. These disciplines also nurture a community of speech that continues to find its voice even as others resort to war. The four books considered in this essay respond to the rush and risk of unnecessary conflict wrought by fundamentalists.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defense of the Development of Augustine's Doctrine of Grace By
    In Defense of the Development of Augustine’s Doctrine of Grace by Laban Omondi Agisa Submitted to the faculty of the School of Theology of the University of the South in Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Sacred Theology January 2020 Sewanee, Tennessee Approved ____________________________ _______________ Adviser Date ____________________________ _______________ Second Adviser Date 2 DECLARATION I declare that this is my original work and has not been presented in any other institution for consideration of any certification. This work has been complemented by sources duly acknowledged and cited using Chicago Manual Style. Signature Date 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT My study of theology was initiated in 2009 by the then Provost of St. Stephens Cathedral, Nairobi, the late Ven. Canon John Ndung’u who was a great encouragement to me. This was further made possible through my bishop the Rt. Rev. Joel Waweru and the Rev. Geoffrey Okapisi who were sources of inspiration. My studies at Carlile College (Church Army Africa) and St. Paul’s University laid a strong theological foundation and I appreciate among others the influence of the Rev. Dr. John Kiboi who introduced me to Philosophy, Systematic Theology, Ethics, and African Christian Theology that eventually became the foundation for my studies at the University of the South. I also appreciate the encouragement of my lecturers Mrs. Tabitha Waweru and Dr. Scholarstica Githinji during my Study of Education at Kenya Technical Trainers College and at Daystar University respectively. My interest in this topic came as a result of many sittings with two professors at the University of the South, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Doctrinal Preaching
    THE BOYCE SOCIETY of THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY DOCTRINAL PREACHING a lecture presented February 18, 2004 Gregg R. Allison, Ph.D. Introduction A. “There have been few times in the history of the church when solid doctrinal preaching and teaching have been more needed. Yet seldom has such preaching been more difficult and problematic” (Millard J. Erickson and James L. Heflin, Old Wine in New Wineskins: Doctrinal Preaching in a Changing World, p. 9). “No longer can we take for granted a fundamental understanding of the basics of the faith” (Robert G. Hughes and Robert Kysar, Preaching Doctrine for the Twenty-First Century, p. 1) B. the importance of doctrine • sound doctrine important for the church o The sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God (1 Tim. 1:10-11) o For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine (2 Tim. 4:3) o If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing (1 Tim. 6:3-4) o What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 1:13) • sound doctrine important for leaders of the church o Command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer (1 Tim. 1:3) o The overseer must be…able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2) o He (the elder) must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it (Titus 1:9) o You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine (Titus 2:1) o Watch your life and doctrine closely.
    [Show full text]
  • 48. Toleration in the Synagogues Tosephta Shabbat 13:5 up to This Point, Christians Had Continued to Be Jews, and As Such to Take Part in Synagogue Worship
    133 48. Toleration in the Synagogues Tosephta Shabbat 13:5 Up to this point, Christians had continued to be Jews, and as such to take part in synagogue worship. Their texts, if any (one was probably the Gospel of Mark, their first authority statement; another may have been a copy of the circular letter of Jacob), were accordingly sometimes kept in the synagogue. Grand synagogue buildings, meant to replace the Temple whose rebuilding was no longer a viable possibility, were rare until the 3rd century. Before then, especially in the smaller towns, Jews may have met in someone’s house, just as the Jesus followers did. One way or another, the first century situation was that members of the Jesus sect often kept their special texts in the same place as the more mainstream Jews did. This we know because the Rabbinic texts provide for it, by specifying what should be rescued from a fire. The Rabbis disapproved of the Jesus texts, and had hard words for them, but the hard words attest the presence of the texts. The fact that these Jesus texts contained the name of God, which had to be treated with respect, was a complication. Here are several rulings on the issue, by two named Rabbis: The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim they do not save from a fire. But they are allowed to burn where they are. They and the references to the Divine Name in them. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, On ordinary days, one cuts out the references to the Divine Name which are in them and stores them away, and the rest burns.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Ideological Analysis of Mass Mediated Language
    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 8-2006 Democracy, Hegemony, and Consent: A Critical Ideological Analysis of Mass Mediated Language Michael Alan Glassco Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Mass Communication Commons Recommended Citation Glassco, Michael Alan, "Democracy, Hegemony, and Consent: A Critical Ideological Analysis of Mass Mediated Language" (2006). Master's Theses. 4187. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/4187 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEMOCRACY, HEGEMONY, AND CONSENT: A CRITICAL IDEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF MASS MEDIA TED LANGUAGE by Michael Alan Glassco A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College in partial fulfillment'of the requirements for the Degreeof Master of Arts School of Communication WesternMichigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan August 2006 © 2006 Michael Alan Glassco· DEMOCRACY,HEGEMONY, AND CONSENT: A CRITICAL IDEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF MASS MEDIATED LANGUAGE Michael Alan Glassco, M.A. WesternMichigan University, 2006 Accepting and incorporating mediated political discourse into our everyday lives without conscious attention to the language used perpetuates the underlying ideological assumptions of power guiding such discourse. The consequences of such overreaching power are manifestin the public sphere as a hegemonic system in which freemarket capitalism is portrayed as democratic and necessaryto serve the needs of the public. This thesis focusesspecifically on two versions of the Society of ProfessionalJournalist Codes of Ethics 1987 and 1996, thought to influencethe output of news organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Ideology Chapter 9: Political Ideology|183
    CHAPTER 9: Political Ideology Chapter 9: Political Ideology|183 "Aconservativeisaman withtwoperfectlygood legswho,however,has neverlearnedhowto walkforward." FranklinDelano Roosevelt, 32ndPresidentofthe UnitedStates “Thetroublewithour liberalfriendsisnotthat theyareignorant,but thattheyknowsomuch thatisn'tso.” 9.0 | What’s in a Name? RonaldReagan, 40thPresidentofthe Have you ever been in a discussion, debate, or perhaps even a heated UnitedStates argument about government or politics where one person objected to another person’s claim by saying, “That’s not what I mean by conservative (or liberal)? If so, then join the club. People often have to stop in the middle of a good political discussion when it becomes clear that the participants do not agree on the meanings of the terms that are central to the discussion. This can be the case with ideology because people often use familiar terms such as conservative, liberal, or socialist without agreeing on their meanings. This chapter has three main goals. The first goal is to explain the role ideology plays in modern political systems. The second goal is to define the major American ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism. The primary focus is on modern conservatism and liberalism. The third goal is to explain their role in government and politics. Some attention is also paid to other “isms”—belief systems that have some of the attributes of an ideology—that are relevant to modern American politics such as environmentalism, feminism, terrorism, and fundamentalism. The chapter begins with an examination of ideologies in general. It then examines American conservatism, liberalism, and other belief systems relevant to modern American politics and government. 9.1 | What is an ideology? An ideology is a belief system that consists of a relatively coherent set of ideas, attitudes, or values about government and politics, AND the public policies that are designed to implement the values or achieve the goals.
    [Show full text]
  • The Good of Toleration 313
    Th e Good of Toleration olerance is often said to be a puzzling or paradoxical Tvalue. Within the covers of a single edited volume,1 for example, David Heyd describes it as an “elusive” virtue, while Thomas Scanlon speaks of the “diffi culty” of tolerance and George Fletcher of its “instability.” Bernard Williams even goes so far as to suggest that it may be an “impossible” virtue. In this essay, I will explain why tolerance has been seen as an especially problematic value. But the apparently puzzling character of tolerance will not be my primary focus, nor will I attempt directly to dissolve the various puzzles and paradoxes that have preoccu- pied many writers on the subject. The appearance of paradox arises in particularly acute form when one tries to provide a general justifi cation of tolerance: that is, a general argu- ment as to why people ought to be tolerant of others. Important as the issue of justifi cation is, however, I will concentrate most of my attention 1. David Heyd (ed.), Toleration: An Elusive Virtue (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996). 312 112_Scheffler_Chap_12.indd2_Scheffler_Chap_12.indd 331212 11/13/2010/13/2010 11:42:47:42:47 PPMM the good of toleration 313 on a slightly different issue. The question that concerns me is the ques- tion of what exactly is good about toleration, or, to put it another way, why so many people consider it to be an important value in its own right.2 What features of the practice of toleration enable it to attract the allegiance of its supporters? Clearly, this question is closely related to the question of justifi cation, since any attempted justifi cation will represent toleration as being good in some respect, and any account of the good of toleration might in principle be taken to provide a reason why people ought to be tolerant.
    [Show full text]
  • The Doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity: Key Points
    The Doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity: Key Points There is but one, true God. There are three Persons in the one God and each of these Persons is fully God. Nobody made God. He always was, is now, and always will be. The mystery of the Holy Trinity is the mystery of God in Himself. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the most fundamental and essential truth of the Faith. The sacred mystery of the Holy Trinity is the source of all the other mysteries of the Faith. Sacred mysteries are not things we can’t know anything about, but holy realities that we cannot know everything about. The word Trinity is a contraction of two words: Tri – Unity. It was coined by the Church to help us better understand the sacred mystery of the three divine Persons in one God. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a revealed truth. Without God’s direct revelation, we could not know that the one God is a Trinity of Persons, cf. Matthew 28:19 Nature answers the question what something is. What the divine Persons are is God. Person gives us the answer who someone is. Who God is, is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is why when somebody is baptized, the formula that must be used is: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. None of the three divine Persons is either of the others; each is wholly Himself. Yet each is fully God.
    [Show full text]